RUBY Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the trial Court has placed reliance upon a judgment of a Bench of this Court reported as Frank Anthony Public School Vs. Smt. Amar Kaur, 1984 6 DRJ 47 to return a finding that in proceedings under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA), the period of 15 days for filing an application for leave to defend by the tenant has to be counted from the date of the second service; contention being that this judgment has not followed the ratio laid down by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment of Kamal Bhandari Vs. Brig. Shamsher Singh Malhotra, 1981 20 DLT 380 wherein in similar facts in an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA, the Court had noted that the application seeking leave to defend has to be filed within 15 days of the date of the first service.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Fida Hussain & Others Vs. Moradabad Development Authority & Another, 2011 5 SLT 649 as also a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Bata India Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2011 180 DLT 351 the subsequent co-ordinate Bench of equal strength is bound by the decision of the first Bench; contention being that the later judgment of Frank Anthony Public School could not have held that the period of 15 days has to be counted from the date of the second service when the ratio of Kamal Bhandari was to the contrary.

(3.) Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this count is that because of these different views expressed by the different Benches of this Court, there is a confusion in the subordinate courts and the matter should be rested by referring the issue to a larger Bench.